Archaeologica.org

am not the one grabbing

But many other archaeologists believe that Finkelstein has not proven his case for altering the conventional chronology. For example, Seymour Gitin, director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, contests Finkelstein's assumption that pottery was necessarily exchanged between neighboring contemporaneous sites. Gitin, who co-directed excavations at the Philistine site of Ekron, says that no monochrome pottery has been found at Gezer, a nearby Canaanite city widely agreed to have existed at the same time. "Not one shard representing early Philistine culture has been found at Gezer," Gitin says. "How do you explain that?"

And William Dever, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who excavated Gezer--and unearthed a stone gate of similar design to that found at Megiddo, which he has dated to the 10th century based on the conventional pottery scheme--says that Finkelstein is "way out on a limb" with his chronological correction. "If anyone can prove to me this material is all 9th century B.C. and no Solomon ever lived, I don't care. But proof please, gentlemen, proof please!"

Dever adds that Finkelstein has given short shrift to the circumstantial evidence left by the invasion of Shoshenq I in about 926 B.C., which he believes supports the conventional view. Egyptian inscriptions list more than 100 cities that Shoshenq supposedly conquered--including Megiddo and Gezer. Excavations of more than 25 sites on the list have identified destruction layers that many archaeologists attribute to Shoshenq's invasion. Moreover, there is a characteristic difference in pottery styles--a shift from a hand-burnished to a wheel-burnished finish--in settlements built before and after these destruction layers. Dever and other archaeologists believe this hand-burnished pottery provides a chronological marker for the 10th century B.C. Finkelstein, on the other hand, disagrees, arguing that many of the destruction layers usually attributed to Shoshenq should be blamed on later 9th century B.C. invaders.

Scholars say the discovery by Pittsburgh archaeologist Ron E. Tappy, a professor at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, is the most concrete evidence that Israelites were literate as early as the 10th century B.C.

"This is very rare. This stone will be written about for many years to come," Tappy said Wednesday at a news conference. "This makes it very historically probable there were people in the 10th century (B.C.) who could write."

But that is not crucial, he said, because "we have little epigraphic material from the 10th century in Israel, and so this substantially augments the material we have

archaeologist wrote:i am not the one grabbing, it is all those who seek to discredit the biblical account that grab at straws. but we shall see what kitchen has to say.

archaeologist wrote:

am not the one grabbing

here is why--- though i am not a dever fan evenhe agrees with me on this one:

http://megiddo.tau.ac.il/sciencearticle.html

But many other archaeologists believe that Finkelstein has not proven his case for altering the conventional chronology. For example, Seymour Gitin, director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, contests Finkelstein's assumption that pottery was necessarily exchanged between neighboring contemporaneous sites. Gitin, who co-directed excavations at the Philistine site of Ekron, says that no monochrome pottery has been found at Gezer, a nearby Canaanite city widely agreed to have existed at the same time. "Not one shard representing early Philistine culture has been found at Gezer," Gitin says. "How do you explain that?"

And William Dever, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who excavated Gezer--and unearthed a stone gate of similar design to that found at Megiddo, which he has dated to the 10th century based on the conventional pottery scheme--says that Finkelstein is "way out on a limb" with his chronological correction. "If anyone can prove to me this material is all 9th century B.C. and no Solomon ever lived, I don't care. But proof please, gentlemen, proof please!"

Dever adds that Finkelstein has given short shrift to the circumstantial evidence left by the invasion of Shoshenq I in about 926 B.C., which he believes supports the conventional view. Egyptian inscriptions list more than 100 cities that Shoshenq supposedly conquered--including Megiddo and Gezer. Excavations of more than 25 sites on the list have identified destruction layers that many archaeologists attribute to Shoshenq's invasion. Moreover, there is a characteristic difference in pottery styles--a shift from a hand-burnished to a wheel-burnished finish--in settlements built before and after these destruction layers. Dever and other archaeologists believe this hand-burnished pottery provides a chronological marker for the 10th century B.C. Finkelstein, on the other hand, disagrees, arguing that many of the destruction layers usually attributed to Shoshenq should be blamed on later 9th century B.C. invaders.

Volume 287, Number 5450 Issue of 7 Jan 2000, pp. 31 - 32
©2000 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science

archaeologist wrote:and here is another reason. this would support the biblical record of david and solomon being able to write at that time:

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/6988.htm

Scholars say the discovery by Pittsburgh archaeologist Ron E. Tappy, a professor at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, is the most concrete evidence that Israelites were literate as early as the 10th century B.C.

"This is very rare. This stone will be written about for many years to come," Tappy said Wednesday at a news conference. "This makes it very historically probable there were people in the 10th century (B.C.) who could write."

the following:

But that is not crucial, he said, because "we have little epigraphic material from the 10th century in Israel, and so this substantially augments the material we have

given the amount of destruction jerusalem and other parts of the divided kingdom went through , is very understandable. those that sit back and do not take into account the invasions which would have removed or destroyed, documents, artifacts, pottery, and so on, are just looking for an excuse to dismiss the time period and its key players.

why would there be a lot of evidence left in or around a city that has had so much done to it over the centuries, then you must add in the weather and its destructive power. if Kitchen is right in his book, 'the Bible in its World, we must consider what has been blown away by the desert winds as well.

so to rely solely on physical evidence, or the lack thereof, for the acceptance or dismissal of the 10th century period, is not the smartest thing to do.

Though the part of the site where the inscription was found has only begun to be studied, preliminary results suggest that in the tenth century BCE Tel Zayit was associated with the highland culture of southern Canaan, not the coastal culture of the Philistine plain, and therefore it very well may have functioned as part of the new state being formed by Kings David and Solomon, with its capital at Jerusalem.

Back to Dever, though, In 2003 he wrote that he and Finkelstein were in total agreement on 8 major points:

All older models (meaning Albright and all your other bible thumping pals) are obsolete

All the current evidence points to a demographic surge in Iron I, especially in the hill country

And before you forget (because you have a tendency to forget things which do not support your beliefs, Dever is the foremost proponent of polytheism in the form of the worshipping of Canaanite gods by early Israelites.

trotting out the glories of David and Solomon who, as shown by other archaeology, were squatting around dung fires in their mud huts...

you need to show that there was a Davidic empire.

archaeologist wrote:

Back to Dever, though, In 2003 he wrote that he and Finkelstein were in total agreement on 8 major points:

who said he made the correct change? i sure didn't.

And who the hell asked you for your opinion?

All older models (meaning Albright and all your other bible thumping pals) are obsolete

and dever and finkelstein have the right to make such a pronouncement? i think not.

Based on the evidence they have uncovered...Yes. Clinging to outmoded theories from the past in the light of new discoveries is shortsighted to the extreme.

All the current evidence points to a demographic surge in Iron I, especially in the hill country

this would not rule out moses, the exodus, or the conquest, but instead provide the first glimpse of evidence for stability after such events.

Wrong, Arch. No Israelites in Egypt means no moses, no exodus, no joshua, no glorious conquest, no parting of the red sea, no angel of death. Kind of guts the whole thing, don't it?

And before you forget (because you have a tendency to forget things which do not support your beliefs, Dever is the foremost proponent of polytheism in the form of the worshipping of Canaanite gods by early Israelites.

never said he was an ally, i found it strange that he took such a position but it is useful as it shows that even your side held beliefs that supported my side.

That's because you still think that when archaeologists disagree with each other it means you are right. They disagree with each other by a minimal amount, down to a century in Dever's case and a half century or so in Mazar's. That leaves no room for any of your "miracles."

trotting out the glories of David and Solomon who, as shown by other archaeology, were squatting around dung fires in their mud huts...

correction, it has been HYPOTHESIZED not shown .

It is exactly the kind of sensationalizing that Albright used to do when he claimed that every rock he dug up was something that moses had pissed on. There is absolutely no reason to suggest literacy or Israelites or David and Solomon but that is exactly what your boy did. They do that for a reason....to fire up the believers into thinking that these fables are real. Later, when it is quietly announced that the writing is Phoenecian (which....is exactly what we should find!) all you will remember is that some guy found evidene of David's kingdom. Then we will have this whole argument all over again.

You know the truth is that contrary to what Tappy suggests, the fact is that a compelling case could be made for ignorant goatherders building a wall out of the relics of a far more advanced civilization....which Canaan would have been in the LBA.

you need to show that there was a Davidic empire.

i have done so, you just don't accept the source material, you are theone who would have to prove that they did not exist. i have the documents, you only have theory.

Your 'source material' is the bible or 'scholars' who quote the bible. There is no room temporally or physically for a Davidic empire in the mid-10th century. It was a later creation by scribes and priests to give their new kingdom a 'glorious' past. When it comes to history your "documents" have been shown to be worthless. You have no artifacts to back up the words.

And who the hell asked you for your opinion?

You have no artifacts to back up the words.

archaeologist wrote:and there is this tidbit----

http://www.planetware.com/israel/hazor-isr-nr-hz.htm

Other scholars are skeptical that the foundation walls discovered by the archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, are David's palace. But they acknowledge that what she has uncovered is rare and important: a major public building from around the 10th century B.C., with pottery shards that date to the time of David and Solomon and a government seal of an official mentioned in the book of Jeremiah

The fact that Israel was not completely destroyed means Israel was not just a small tribe. The Greeks existed as a people during the Trojan War, 900 years before they became a world power. Considering that Europeans first began settling the new world after 1500 AD, and that the United States only became a nation in 1776 AD, with massive immigration, we can see that Israel’s origins must be at least 200 to 300 years prior to Merneptah. Two hundred years before Merneptah would be the 15th century B.C.

This year's excavations have revealed more than 40 meters of a massive fortification system associated with the six-chambered gate common in the building projects of King Solomon. Solomon’s extensive building projects are recorded in the biblical account of his activities throughout his kingdom and at his capital city of Jerusalem (1 Kings 9:15-17).

Radiocarbon analysis of charred wood, grain, and fruit in several sediment layers revealed two major phases of copper processing, first in the 12th and 11th centuries, later in the 10th and 9th centuries.

The exhibition is an outgrowth of a recent book by Lawrence Stager, the Dorot Professor of the Archaeology of Israel, and Philip King, professor emeritus of biblical studies at Boston College. The book, "Life in Biblical Israel" (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), brings together practically everything that is known about ancient Israel ranging from food, clothing, and family relationships to the esoteric concepts of religious life.

for now i have done some research and have come up with some links to substantiate the case for a 10th century israel: